The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching
Abstract
In this paper we developed models to explore possible mechanisms by which individuals could classify conspecifics as full siblings, half siblings, or nonrelatives, assuming that kinship is assessed by comparing phenotypes of conspecifics to a learned template. The hypothesized template is learned during interactions with one's parents or one's self. In general, phenotype matching based on fully heritable metric traits was more accurate than discriminations based on discretely varying traits (table 1). However, in the metric trait models recognition errors rapidly increased if random environmental factors influenced the observed variation. Reliable discrimination of kinship based on discrete traits required either a large number of variants (alleles per locus), or the assessment of many traits (independently assorting loci). For a fixed total number of alleles, over all recognition loci, minimum error was obtained with three to five alleles per locus. Discrimination between full siblings and either half sibs or nonrelatives based on comparisons to one's self was less accurate when completely dominant traits were assessed than when there was codominant expression of the alleles. However, dominance increased the accuracy of discrimination between half sibs and non-relatives based on trait matching to one's self. Dominance also increased the accuracy of discrimination among all three categories of relatives when phenotype comparisons were made to one's parents. Phenotype matching to one's self allows discrimination of full sibs from nonrelatives with no more, and often less, error than does comparison to either parent. The best source of information for discriminating half sibs from either full sibs or nonrelatives is often the individual that is a parent of only one of the two kin classes being differentiated. Many attributes, metric or discrete, may not possess the variation necessary for reliable recognition of kin. However, selection might favor increased genetically determined variation in those characters specifically involved in phenotype matching.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
Cited by
Ant Nestmate and Non-Nestmate Discrimination by a Chemosensory Sensillum
Ozaki, M., Wada-Katsumata, A., Fujikawa, K., Iwasaki, M., Yokohari, F., Satoji, Y., Nisimura, T., & Yamaoka, R. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1105244 · Cited by 441
Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons
van Zweden, J. S., & d'Ettorre, P. (2010) · Insect Hydrocarbons · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511711909.012 · Cited by 426
The Evolution of Ethnocentrism
Hammond, R. A., & Axelrod, R. (2006) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002706293470 · Cited by 304
Alyousefi-van Dijk, K., van ‘t Veer, A. E., Meijer, W. M., Lotz, A. M., Rijlaarsdam, J., Witteman, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00105 · Cited by 22
Hope, S. F., Willgohs, K. R., Dittakul, S., & Plotnik, J. M. (2025) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-024-00655-y · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Lacy, R. C., & Sherman, P. W.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1983-04
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 489-512
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2033134707
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284078
- The paper
- Lacy, R. C., & Sherman, P. W. (1983). Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284078
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.